Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Denies Sprint's Motion to Dismiss or Stay iPCS's Lawsuit against Sprint Relating to the Clearwire Joint Venture

iPCS, Inc. (NASDAQ: IPCS), a PCS Affiliate of Sprint Nextel (NYSE: S),
today announced that the Honorable Judge Kathleen M. Pantle has denied
Sprint’s motion to dismiss or stay the lawsuit
brought by three subsidiaries of iPCS in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division, against Sprint regarding Sprint’s
planned WiMax transaction with Clearwire Corporation (NASDAQ: CLWR). iPCS’s
subsidiaries are seeking a declaratory judgment that Sprint’s
consummation of the transaction, and its plan to compete against the
iPCS affiliates, will breach the affiliation agreements of the
subsidiaries with Sprint. The iPCS subsidiaries are asking the court for
a permanent injunction enjoining Sprint and those acting in concert with
it from consummating the transaction until such transaction can be
modified to comply with the subsidiaries’
affiliation agreements with Sprint.

“We are delighted with the Illinois court’s
decision denying Sprint’s motion and allowing
our case to be heard,” commented Timothy M.
Yager, President and CEO of iPCS. “Over the
past few years, the exclusivity provisions of our affiliation agreements
have been continually tested by Sprint, and we believe that it is
appropriate and necessary to continue to defend our rights under the
agreements. We firmly believe that the Illinois courts, including the
Illinois Appellate Court, that have previously enforced our exclusivity
protection will also find that this latest attempt by Sprint to compete
with us in our territory is another violation of our agreements,”
stated Yager.

iPCS and its subsidiaries have been involved in litigation with Sprint
for nearly three years over the exclusivity provisions of their
affiliation agreements, and have repeatedly won significant court
rulings. Most recently, on March 31, 2008, the Illinois Appellate Court
unanimously upheld the Circuit Court’s
earlier ruling requiring Sprint to cease owning, operating or managing
the Nextel wireless network in iPCS Wireless, Inc.’s
territories, which cover parts of five states. Sprint has asked the
Supreme Court of Illinois to hear its further appeal of the earlier
decisions. A decision whether to hear Sprint’s
appeal is expected this Fall.

Sprint - Clearwire Litigation Background

On May 7, 2008, Sprint Nextel announced it had agreed to enter into a
transaction among itself, Clearwire Corporation and certain other
parties (the “Sprint-Clearwire Transaction”).
The same day, Sprint Nextel filed a complaint for declaratory judgment
against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware. In that lawsuit, Sprint Nextel seeks
a declaration that the Sprint-Clearwire Transaction would not constitute
a breach of the three separate Sprint affiliation agreements it has with
the Company’s subsidiaries.

On May 12, 2008, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries filed a
lawsuit against Sprint Nextel Corporation and certain of its affiliates
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief with respect to the Sprint-Clearwire Transaction. In
that case, the Company and its subsidiaries seek a declaration that the
Sprint-Clearwire Transaction, if consummated, would constitute a breach
of the Sprint affiliation agreements between Sprint Nextel and certain
of the Company’s subsidiaries, and also seek
an injunction barring Sprint Nextel from consummating the
Sprint-Clearwire Transaction, until the transaction is modified to
comply with the affiliation agreements. The case was stayed pending
certain events in the Delaware litigation initiated by Sprint Nextel.
Sprint Nextel moved to dismiss the Illinois case or, in the alternative,
to continue the stay. The Company moved to lift the stay in the case. On
September 15, 2008, the Circuit Court denied Sprint Nextel’s
motion to dismiss the Illinois case

On July 14, 2008, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware issued
an opinion granting the motion of the Company and its subsidiaries,
dismissing two of the Company’s subsidiaries,
Horizon Personal Communications, Inc. and Bright Personal Communications
Services, LLC from the Delaware litigation, and denied the motion to
dismiss iPCS and its subsidiary, iPCS Wireless, Inc. On July 28, 2008,
iPCS Wireless, Inc. filed a counterclaim in the Delaware Court in which
it seeks a declaration that the Sprint-Clearwire Transaction, if
consummated, would constitute a breach of the Sprint affiliation
agreements. The same day, iPCS and iPCS Wireless, Inc. filed a motion to
dismiss the remainder of the case pending before it or, in the
alternative, to transfer the case to the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware. The Delaware Court has not yet ruled on that motion.

Sprint/Nextel Litigation Background and Update

On July 15, 2005, the Company’s wholly
owned subsidiary, iPCS Wireless, Inc., filed a complaint against Sprint
and Sprint PCS in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The
complaint alleged, among other things, that Sprint’s
conduct following the consummation of the merger between Sprint and
Nextel, would breach Sprint’s exclusivity
obligations to iPCS Wireless under its affiliation agreements with
Sprint PCS. On August 14, 2006, the Circuit Court issued its decision
and on September 20, 2006, the Circuit Court issued a final order
effecting its decision. The final order provides that:

Within 180 days of the date of the final order, Sprint and those
acting in concert with it must cease owning, operating, and managing
the Nextel wireless network in iPCS Wireless’s
territory.

Sprint shall continue to comply with all terms and conditions of the
Forbearance Agreement between the Company and Sprint setting forth
certain limitations on Sprint’s operations
following the merger with Nextel.

On September 28, 2006, Sprint appealed the Circuit Court’s
ruling to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, and,
at Sprint’s request, the effectiveness of the
Circuit Court’s ruling was stayed by the
Appellate Court pending the appeal. On March 31, 2008, the Appellate
Court unanimously affirmed the 2006 Circuit Court decision. On May 5,
2008, Sprint filed a petition for leave to appeal with the Supreme Court
of Illinois. The Supreme Court’s decision on
Sprint’s petition for leave to appeal is
expected this Fall.

About iPCS, Inc.

iPCS, through its operating subsidiaries, is a Sprint PCS Affiliate of
Sprint Nextel with the exclusive right to sell wireless mobility
communications network products and services under the Sprint brand in
81 markets including markets in Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania,
Indiana, Iowa, Ohio and Tennessee. The territory includes key markets
such as Grand Rapids (MI), Fort Wayne (IN), Tri-Cities (TN), Scranton
(PA), Saginaw-Bay City (MI) and Quad Cities (IA/IL). As of June 30,
2008, iPCS's licensed territory had a total population of approximately
15.1 million residents, of which its wireless network covered
approximately 12.2 million residents, and iPCS had approximately 654,000
subscribers. iPCS is headquartered in Schaumburg, Illinois. For more
information, please visit iPCS’s website at www.ipcswirelessinc.com.

Statements in this press release regarding iPCS's business which are
not historical facts are "forward-looking statements." Forward-looking
statements generally can be identified by the use of forward-looking
terminology such as "may," "will," "expect," "intend," "estimate,"
"anticipate," "believe" or "continue" or the negative thereof or
variations thereon or similar terminology. Such statements are based
upon the current beliefs and expectations of management and are subject
to significant risks and uncertainties. A variety of factors could cause
actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in iPCS's
forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, the following
factors: (1) iPCS's dependence on its affiliation with Sprint; (2) the
final outcome of iPCS's litigation against Sprint concerning the
Sprint/Nextel merger and the scope of iPCS's exclusivity, including with
respect to Sprint's proposed WiMAX transaction with Clearwire; (3)
changes in Sprint's affiliation strategy as a result of the
Sprint/Nextel merger and Sprint's acquisition of all but three Sprint
Affiliates of Sprint Nextel; (4) changes in Sprint's ability to devote
as much of its personnel and resources to the remaining three Sprint
Affiliates of Sprint Nextel; (5) changes in iPCS's customer default
rates and increases in bad debt expense; (6) changes or advances in
technology; (7) changes in Sprint's national service plans, products and
services or its fee structure with iPCS; (8) declines in the
relationship between roaming revenue iPCS receives and roaming expense
iPCS pays; (9) the impact on iPCS's business of the recent amendments to
iPCS's affiliation agreements with Sprint; (10) iPCS's reliance on the
timeliness, accuracy and sufficiency of financial and other data and
information received from Sprint; (11) difficulties in network
construction, expansion and upgrades; (12) increased competition in
iPCS's markets; (13) iPCS's dependence on independent third parties for
a sizable percentage of its sales; (14) the inability to open the number
of new stores and to expand the co-dealer network as planned; and (15)
the depth and duration of the economic downturn in the United States.
For a detailed discussion of these and other cautionary statements and
factors that could cause actual results to differ from iPCS's
forward-looking statements, please refer to iPCS's filings with the SEC,
especially in the "risk factors" section of the Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, our Form 10-Q for the
quarters ended March 31, 2008 and June 30, 2008 and in any subsequent
filings with the SEC. Investors and analysts should not place undue
reliance on forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements
in this document speak only as of the date of the document and iPCS
assumes no obligation to update the forward-looking statements or to
update the reasons why actual results could differ from those contained
in the forward-looking statements.